The federal district court disagreed with the insurer's strident claim that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for deciding coverage under a homeowner's policy. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 2, 2013).

   Several years after their house was constructed, the insureds discovered water damage. Chubb denied the claim. The insureds sued. Chubb moved for summary judgment and argued that the loss first manifested many years after its policy expired. Further, Chubb argued that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for first-party property insurance, meaning that only the insurance policy in effect when the loss manifested was required to respond. 

   Chubb's motion was denied. There was no state court precedent applying the manifestation trigger to first-party property cases. The court refused to go out on a limb and recognize a theory not yet observed by Wisconsin state courts. 

   Chubb also moved for summary judgment on the insureds' count for bad faith because the claims were "fairly debatable." On the current record, the court was unable to conclude that the claims presented particularly complex facts and circumstances outside the common knowledge and ordinary experience of an average juror. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was denied.